AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28 bills of entry dated 21.2.2011 were filed for clearance claiming duty exemption as per notification dated 1.3.2002. It was the contention of the revenue that the imported Crude Palm Oil was not of edible grade and that Ruchi soya was not entitled to duty exemption as claimed and hence, a show cause notice dated 17.2.2012 was issued. A reply was filed by the assessee to the said show cause notice. Consequent to the same, Order-in-Original was passed on 31.7.2012 (Annexure-D) by the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [Commissioner], whereunder the demand of customs duty amounting to Rs. 19,40,00,646/- was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT in Appeal No. 2657/2012. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, an order dated 8.12.2017/15.12.2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] was passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench [NCLT] in CP No. 1371-1372/I&BP/NCLT/MAH/2017, whereunder the NCLT ordered commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Ruchi Soya and an Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] was appointed to carry out the functions as per the IBC. Pursuant to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of India (2022) 6 SCC 343, the demand against the assessee has abated and the liability whatsoever has extinguished. It is further contended that a Division Bench of the Gujarath High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limted) Order dated 25.8.2022 passed in Tax Appeal No. 32/2019, the case of the appellant itself, has also followed the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 343,. It is further contended that reliance placed by the Tribunal on Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules to hold that the appeal has abated is erroneous and contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noticed above. Hence, he seeks for allowing the appeal and granting the reliefs sought for. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent - revenue does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.,. 10. The submissions of both the leaned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 11. The relevant fact situation as noticed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect. 102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued." (emphasis supplied) 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., was considering the following questions: "6. The short point that is involved is as to whether the claim of the present respondent which was admittedly not lodged before the resolution professional after public notices were issued under Sections 13 and 15 IBC could be considered at this stage." (emphasis supplied) 13.1 After noticing its earlier judgment in the case of Ghanshaym Mishra it has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to note Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules, which reads as follows: "RULE 22. Continuance of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application. - Where in any proceedings the appellant or applicant or respondent dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal or application shall abate, unless an application is made for continuance of such proceedings by or against the successor-in-interest, the executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representative of the appellant or applicant or respondent, as the case may be: Provided that every such application shall be made within a period of sixty days of the occurrence of the event : Provided further that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period so specified, allow it to be presented within such further period as it may deem fit." 18. It is clear from a reading of the same that in the event a party to the appeal dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, ....